There are a number of health and welfare plan action items to address as 2016 closes and 2017 begins. In addition, many employers are wondering how these action items may be affected by the November election results. We have addressed these action items and the possible effects of the election results in our HB Health and Welfare blog here, including: Affordable Care Act (“ACA”) reporting for 2016 (i.e. Forms 1094/1095) and related issues; Issues that may impact plan design and/or written materials, such as the ACA, recent wellness regulations, and federal agency enforcement activity; and Certain other reporting and communication requirements.
There are a number of health and welfare plan action items to address as 2016 closes and 2017 begins. The election results have created uncertainty in the minds of many regarding whether certain legal obligations will remain in effect (or be enforced). Employers should assume Affordable Care Act (ACA) and other existing obligations will continue unless and until repealed or otherwise affected by subsequent guidance. It is not clear how soon change may occur after the inauguration on January 20, 2017. Based on the promises by both President-Elect Trump and the Republican Party to repeal and/or replace the ACA, we expect that revenue related ACA requirements, such as the employer shared responsibility provisions, are more likely to be affected during 2017 than other ACA requirements like the preventive services mandates that merely impact plan design. Other changes, such as those suggested by the President-Elect in his healthcare position statement or… Continue Reading
Extension of Due Dates for 2016 Individual Statements Under Affordable Care Act Information Reporting
In Notice 2016-70 (the “Notice”), the IRS extended the due date, from January 31, 2017 to March 2, 2017, for employers (including so-called “applicable large employers”), insurers, and other providers of “minimum essential coverage” in 2016 (“Reporting Entities”) to furnish statements to individuals on IRS Forms 1095-B and 1095-C, pursuant to the Affordable Care Act’s information reporting requirements (the “ACA Reporting Requirements”). The Notice also extends the IRS’s transition relief from penalties that Reporting Entities could otherwise incur for incorrect or incomplete information reported on their 2016 information returns. To obtain this relief, a Reporting Entity must show that it made a good faith effort to comply with the ACA Reporting Requirements in furnishing statements to individuals and filing with the IRS. Notably, the Notice does not extend the due date under the ACA Reporting Requirements for Reporting Entities to file their 2016 information returns with the IRS. Accordingly, that… Continue Reading
The following non-exhaustive list describes year-end action items and the annual notices for retirement plans that generally must be distributed within a reasonable time prior to the start of the plan year. For calendar year plans, providing the notices outlined below by December 1 will meet this requirement in most cases. Safe Harbor 401(k) Notice: For 401(k) plans that are designed to comply with the safe harbor requirements of the Internal Revenue Code. Automatic Enrollment Notice: For any plan that includes automatic enrollment provisions. Qualified Automatic Contribution Arrangement Notice: For plans that are designed to comply with the Internal Revenue Code’s qualified automatic contribution provisions. Eligible Automatic Contribution Arrangement Notice: For plans that are designed to comply with the Internal Revenue Code’s eligible automatic contribution provisions. Qualified Default Investment Alternative (“QDIA”) Notice: For plans with participant-directed investments that include a QDIA in which a participant’s account will be invested if… Continue Reading
Amdocs (Israel) Ltd. v. Openet Telecom, Inc., No. 15-1180 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 1, 2016) is the latest in a series of recent decisions in which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has reversed a district court’s finding of patent ineligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101. In Amdocs, the Federal Circuit addressed the application of the judicially created “abstract idea” exception to patent eligibility under the two-step framework set forth by the U.S. Supreme Court in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014) (following Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289 (2012)). The district court in Amdocs invalidated the four patents asserted by Plaintiff-Appellant Amdocs (Israel) Ltd. as patent ineligible under § 101 using the two-step Alice/Mayo framework: US Patent Nos. 7,631,065 (“’065 patent”); 7,412,510 (“’510 patent”); 6,947,984 (“’984 patent”); and 6,836,797 (“’797 patent”). As discussed by the Federal Circuit, all… Continue Reading
On August 15, 2016, in an opinion by Judge Moore in ScriptPro LLC. V. Innovation Assocs., Inc. (ScriptPro I), the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit addressed the issue of how much written description support is needed under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph) for patent claims that are broader than the primary embodiments disclosed in the specification. More specifically, the holding of ScriptPro I reinforces the importance of describing multiple embodiments within the specification, and alternatively including some broadening language within the specification to help defend broad claims against allegations that the specification lacks written description support. Background In 2006, ScriptPro sued Innovation Associates, Inc. (“Innovation Associates”) for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,910,601 (“the ’601 patent”). The ’601 patent describes a collating unit used to store prescription containers after medication has been dispensed into the prescription containers by an automatic dispensing system (“ADS”). … Continue Reading
On October 14, 2016, in Poly-America, L.P. v. API Industries (Appeal No. 16-1200, Fed. Cir. October 14, 2016), the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“the CAFC”) analyzed and applied one of two exceptions to the general claim construction rule that claim terms are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312–13 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). This one exception states that the plain and ordinary meaning standard [of claim construction] is departed from when the patentee disavows the full scope of the claim term in the specification or during prosecution. Hill-Rom Servs., Inc. v. Stryker Corp., 755 F.3d 1367, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2014). The question before the CAFC in Poly-America was whether any of the terminology in the asserted patent, or any of patentee’s actions during its prosecution, could be interpreted as a disavowal of claim scope. In answering this question,… Continue Reading
The 2016 enrollment count submission under the Transitional Reinsurance Program is due November 15, 2016. The submission may be completed via www.pay.gov. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services offers the option to pay the 2016 reinsurance contribution in one payment due by January 17, 2017, or two payments due by January 17, 2017 and November 15, 2017.
Is common sense good enough to make up for deficiencies of a cited reference in an obviousness analysis? In Arendi S.A.R.L. v. Apple Inc., the Federal Circuit said “no,” by reversing a decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) to invalidate U.S. Patent No. 7,917,843 (the “Arendi patent”). When Arendi S.A.R.L., a Luxembourg company, brought patent infringement suits against several technology heavyweights, including Apple, Inc., Google, Inc., and Motorola Mobility LLC, these defendant companies struck back by filing a petition for an Inter Partes Review (“IPR”) seeking to invalidate the Arendi patent. In the IPR proceeding, the PTAB invalidated the Arendi patent on the grounds of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. §103. Arendi then appealed the case to the U.S. Court of Appeal for the Federal Circuit. The Arendi patent is directed to computer functions that allow a user to remain in a document displayed by a first computer… Continue Reading
On September 30, 2016, in Intellectual Ventures I LLC, v. Symantec Corp., No. 15-1769, 15-1770, 15-1771, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) overturned a lower court’s finding of patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for a patent directed to using computer virus screening in a telephone network, while affirming the lower court’s finding of patent ineligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for two other patents directed to methods of screening emails and other data files for unwanted content, and methods of routing e-mail messages based on specified rules. The court analyzed each of the patents at issue separately using the Mayo/Alice two-part test for determining patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101, coming to the same conclusion each time. First, the court addressed U.S. Patent No. 6,460,050 (“the ‘050 patent”), which was held patent ineligible by the lower court. The ‘050 patent is directed to filtering e-mails that have unwanted content by… Continue Reading